About Hunter Wallace 11875 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

25 Comments

  1. They’ve actually been around a while. They were getting shit on only 2 years ago. And now…this. Who would’ve thought.

  2. Notice that the second video is titled “Greek Neo-Nazis”. This Greek political party in 2012 is identified by the video maker as a German political party which ceased to exist in 1945. A political party and ideology which was meant for Germans only, somehow becomes Greek!!

    The term “neo-nazi” has become a slander word used to attack any native European peoples who wish to preserve themselves.

  3. Any European nationalist is called a nazi. It’s knee-jerk. I think the media has a computer programmed with their little catch-phrases.

    Apparently the leader of Golden Dawn is a mathematician. I find that interesting.

  4. Jim – you ain’t kidding, re the Nazi tag. It’s automatic. THIS is WHY I say we must address the entire thing, and NOT back off, or demur. Hunter’s tread about appeasment of Negroes – it’s nothing compared to appeasing the Kikenvermin.

  5. I would love to see a free and prosperous White Greece ran by actual Greeks instead of Kosher puppets.

  6. Greeks are fed up with “bloodsucking international banksters.” I wonder why.

    Note: In this case, the bloodsucking international banksters tend to be Germans.

  7. Yes they are Hunter. They tend to have a much shorter fuse than us here who seemingly can grin and bear almost anything.

  8. Again, and as I’ve stated before, I agree with Denise’s statement about needing to be prepared to address this issue. It’s easy to do if you think about it and know a little history. The WWII history we’ve been fed is maybe 30% truth and 70% myth.
    In the DWL mind, the Confederacy was no better than the 3rd Reich.

  9. The Irish must be wondering WTF they got themselves with borrowing from the Germans. Well, they are getting 100 thousands of Nigerians.

  10. “The Irish must be wondering WTF they got themselves with borrowing from the Germans. Well, they are getting 100 thousands of Nigerians.”

    That’s exactly what an unemployed, run-down economy needs. More jobless schlubs.

  11. “The nationalist Independent Greeks and the Communist party refused even to meet with him, while Samaras himself had already ruled out dealing with the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn, newly arrived in parliament.”

    Look at that, the greek version of our conservatards could hold a majority if they’d work with the “evil nazis”, but they’d rather be powerless and pander. Who does that remind you of?

  12. I generally hate to speak for another man, but is there any doubt, upper right of the screen; it’s there plain as day

  13. John – I know yer on the Irish Savant. Re: those 40 million African “New Irish”

    “Shatter”.

    (Flawless. Too perfect. Life is so much better than Art!).

    Savant is SO cheesed. I know, if I asked him, he’s help me set up a bunch of “bakeries”in Ireland.

    Nudge nudge wink wink.

    Go ahead RRS, and Oscar. Tell me all about how it’s not the Yids….

  14. “Singing Dixie” is not the way to save the Union, gentlemen. See attatched.

    SINGING DIXIE

    There is an unfortunate tendency in the American right wing to glorify the old South. This view is based on a purely romantic and uninformed view of the plantation “civilization”. The South before the war was totally anachronistic. Its economy was agricultural, based on slave labor and completely unsuited to an emerging industrial nation. Had it been allowed to survive, the unification of the United States as the greatest industrial power of the mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century would have been impossible. Before the war, there was great controversy over so-called “free” versus slave states. It was a question of primary political importance for the dominance of either the north or south. The United States could not have survived half free and half slave. The South had to go for the future development of the nation.

    It is idle to argue over whether the destruction of slavery and southern political independence could have been achieved without the war. The fact is that the attempted compromises failed and the issue came down to force, as it usually does. Southerners singing Dixie always live in a fantasy world of states rights and strict constitutionality where the ugly realities of big power politics are never allowed to interfere with the reveries. Let’s examine what these Southerners ignore. If the South had succeeded in breaking up the United States into two nations, then the only half formed U.S. would have been at the mercy of the European powers and their balance-of-politics ploys. The French were in Mexico at this time under Maximillian. A divided U.S would have allowed the French to block U.S. expansion westward across the Mississippi. They could have formed an alliance with either the North or the Confederacy to block either of the two U.S. powers from moving into lands coveted by the French. The British Empire, world famous for playing one rival off against another, could have done the same, provoking either the North or the South and then picking up the pieces. (And, indeed, during the Civil War itself the British considered intervening to aid the South militarily.) No one knows how these imperial scenarios would have played out but a divided U.S. would have been very susceptible to such schemes.

    Confederates with misty eyes simply assume that the Confederacy, once established, would have avoided all these snares. Presumably the great General Lee and the glorious Army of Northern Virginia would have solved all problems, as they did at Appamatox. The lack of reality in this kind of thinking is amazing. The old problem of “free” versus slave states would also have reemerged after a southern victory. If the United States had been allowed to expand westward despite the intervention of the British and French, then every new state or territory would have been up for grabs, exactly as before the war. The old struggle would have reemerged, threatening to revive the war once more. In short, the Confederate Southerners are kidding themselves.

    There is no doubt whatever that the great War Between the States greatly accelerated government power and led to other undesirable results, as great wars always do. But the fact of the matter is that the North was right. A Confederate victory would have had disastrous results for the future of America. It is idle to object that the South was only seceding as their forefathers seceded from England. There is no logical consistency in politics. The Confederacy had to go. Secession is not the solution to present day American problems either. The solution to darkening America is not to retreat from the racial invasion by “seceding”. The solution is to fight for every inch of the land to preserve the Union. And if it takes William Tecumseh Sherman to burn Mexico City to the ground and scorch the earth of La Raza, so much the better.

    IN DEFENSE OF HONEST ABE

    Southern propagandists have presented a generally unfavorable picture of Abraham Lincoln. He has been accused of having provoked the war, of interfering with a divine right of secession and of being a hypocrite on the subject of slavery. All of this is demonstrably untrue. Lincoln’s position on slavery was consistently misrepresented by the press. Lincoln never had the slightest intent of abolishing slavery in the slave states; he only insisted that slavery not be permitted to spread westward. When the northern states passed “free men” laws to prevent the repatriation of escaped slaves, Lincoln sought to repeal such laws so that the slaves could be returned to their rightful owners.

    Lincoln was an unabashed white supremacist. Again and again in his Illinois political debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln denounced any suggestion that the inferior black race should be placed on an equal footing with the superior white race. He dreaded the thought of racial crossing and feared miscegenation as a threat to the survival of the white race. Lincoln’s statements to this effect are so numerous and well documented, both before, during and after the war, that it is a tribute to historical white wash that his real views have been erased from public consciousness. Early in the war in 1862 Lincoln invited a delegation of black leaders to the White House to listen to his proposals for deporting blacks to the Caribbean or Africa. Honest Abe considered numerous plans along these lines, including a plan to send blacks to the Chiriqui region in Central America, a failed attempt to send them to islands off Haiti and encouraging immigration to Liberia on the west coast of Africa.

    Lincoln has received much criticism from Southerners over his Emancipation Proclamation. They denounce it as purely hypocritical, freeing the slaves who were under Southern control but not freeing the slaves who were under Northern control. But this objection misses the point. The Emancipation Proclamation was designed to disrupt the Southern war effort by undermining the loyalties of the blacks who were manning the Confederate arms and munitions industries. In that, it succeeded admirably.

    Lincoln continued with his plans for black deportation after the war. He unsuccessfully solicited the British Empire to allow black migration to Guinea and other South American colonies. Lincoln was literally obsessed with solving America’s “Negro problem” and gave it his highest priority until his death by assassination. There were major impediments to Lincoln’s scheme aside from the reluctance of foreign countries to accept black deportees. The radical Republicans wanted to use black voters to intimidate and control the defeated white Southerners. Business leaders of the emerging industrial economy wanted cheap black labor. Lincoln faced a daunting and difficult task. But he was determined that the task should be accomplished – for the future good of white America.

    Many legitimate criticisms of Lincoln can be made. He was a wartime dictator, he did suppress civil liberties and the freedom of the press, he did allow Northern armies to commit large scale atrocities. But all this pales beside one fact – Abraham Lincoln was preoccupied with one overriding concern – ridding the white United States of its black plague. Even more than preserving the Union, Lincoln wanted a future America of racially homogeneous whites. Let us consider the problems which would have been avoided had he succeeded. Had blacks been expelled from America, then the hordes of Communist Jews who poured into the United States in the 1880’s would not have been able to use the “Negro problem” to promote their aims. There would not have been a gigantic “Civil Rights” campaign to uplift the Negro from presumed white oppression. There would never have been created a vast government bureaucracy to deal with this so-called problem and no federal interference with state and private property rights Neither would other groups, such as Hispanics and feminists, have been able to jump on the Civil Rights bandwagon. In short, America would be a free white nation. Abe Lincoln was a merciless man in wartime. But there was no reason to suppose that he would have been any less merciful in time of peace. It was Thaddeus Stevens and the radical Republicans who imposed Reconstruction, not Lincoln.

    Abraham Lincoln was no saint. But he was a white supremacist, a preserver of the Union and the man who worked harder than any other to solve America’s racial disease. He deserves to be remembered and honored, although for reasons much different from those the Zionist media suggest.

Comments are closed.